Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interactive application security testing
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnCD (talk | contribs) at 15:16, 5 October 2013 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 15:16, 5 October 2013 by JohnCD (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was delete)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interactive application security testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:OR essay or blog piece. Interesting, informative, but not for Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 08:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and agree, Wikipedia articles on related subjects could use some work. It was created by a single-purpose account that also tried to create an article on a company mentioned in this one: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quotium Technologies, which would not disqualify it per se. But this one has just too many issues with style being all out of place. Too many capital letters, no lead, raw urls for citations, dated language (" today’s date", "At this point of time", "at present" etc.) reads clearly like a marketing research report (e.g. solutions) not encyclopedia language. W Nowicki (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree the article has problem (I've added an {{essay-like}} tag) but we don't delete flawed articles, we improve them. The AfD question here is about notability and no one has addressed that question yet. ~KvnG 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, to be explicit, this topic is not notable. Two citations are to a promotional page for a talk by Quotium, who appears to be the ones coining this neologism. Two are for a marketing report that is not available without purchase. One is short blog posting. One is a promotional brochure from Singapore (?) that quotes the same marketing report. Every new acronym invented by a marketer does not automatically get an article. W Nowicki (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If this topic is truly notable, the article would have to be completely rewritten anyway to get rid of the OR and soapboxing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.